Author
Topic: Controversial remarks?? (Read 6232 times)

The US now has the greatest concentration of wealth in the last 100 years. It's not that the country is poor, it's that all that money is in very few hands... and that does not make for a strong economy.

If I remember my history properly, it also does not make for a strong nation.

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

we are an aggregation of individuals making an individual effort toward success. successful individuals make a successful country.

the greatest argument against government intervention is government intervention. for most people, poverty is not a static condition. most of us have experience it to one degree or another and worked/are working our way out of it. where is poverty a static condition? among those groups that are dependant on the government. wealth is not static. just because there are wealthy and poor people, it does not follow that you have to take wealth and give it to others. wealth can be created by those who work hard and make good choices. i do not need to take from my neighbor in order to have what he has.

another argument against government largess is what wealthy liberals do with their money. while they talk about higher taxation to care for the poor, they create tax sheltered foundations to do the job. even they know that the private sector does a better job than the government. almost every chronic problem of poverty can be traced back to a government program. the current economic problems can be largely traced back to congressional interference in the housing market. the now chronic high unemployment problems will persist as long as people are paid to not work.where we are now, we have been before. we know what works to get us out of trouble, yet we persist in doing the things that have been proved not to work.

government care is another form of slavery. you can not protest the hand that feeds you. why would you bother anyway? as long as someone is giving you "stuff", you just go with the flow.

socialism has degrees. socialism in any degree makes people and countries poorer. the Europeans are discovering that now. it is the individual effort that creates wealth for the individual and the country.

i fail to grasp how anyone can justify taking what i have earned to give it to someone who has not earned. that is theft.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

we are an aggregation of individuals making an individual effort toward success. successful individuals make a successful country.

Actually they don't. The tendency of individuals to look after themselves first and foremost results in an ongoing concentration of wealth. Nobody on this forum is old enough to remember back to 1910 when we didn't have an income tax. The concentration of wealth was extreme while children worked in mines and factories. The biggest period of economic growth in the US was the late 1950 and early 1960s. That was an era of big government and big unions. Our economy works best (and the majority of citizens are happiest) when the wealth is more evenly spread.

Quote

socialism has degrees. socialism in any degree makes people and countries poorer. the Europeans are discovering that now. it is the individual effort that creates wealth for the individual and the country.

Actually, the European quality of life has been higher than ours for quite a while... probably since the mid 1970s, certainly since the mid 1980s. Europe has made much more sensible long term decisons about energy and transportation that will keep them ahead of us for a long time. The higher the price of oil goes, the better Europe looks compared to us.

Quote

i fail to grasp how anyone can justify taking what i have earned to give it to someone who has not earned. that is theft.

Theft means taking in contravention of the law. Taxes are legal and therefore not theft. If you want to speak more philosophically, I would argue that much of the wealth held by the richest families and corporations was obtained by theft and not their individual labor. As soon as you hire someone to work for you and don't pay them a good wage, you are stealing their work and pocketing the profit. Market mechanisms are blind to that form of theft. That's why we need minimum wage laws, unemployment insurance, public education and health care, etc. That's the only practical way to compensate for the blind spots in the market mechanism.

I agree with you that private enterprise is more efficient than government in getting things done. I don't argue, for instance, that doctors should become employees of the government. But I do think government should replace the insurance companies that are nothing but leaches on society, not curing one disease or comforting one sick person.

I was going to reply in length, but I am supposed to be <ahem> working :) Then, FRAMEshift responded far better than I ever could have.

I WILL add that Buffett and Gates are my heroes, and I seriously commend their determination to put $ in places where it actually works. I don't see anybody advocating a perpetual welfare state, but I sure want there to be a safety net for people as they work towards getting back on their feet.

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

another argument against government largess is what wealthy liberals do with their money. while they talk about higher taxation to care for the poor, they create tax sheltered foundations to do the job. even they know that the private sector does a better job than the government.

Or maybe they don't want their hard-earned money paying for war...

Logged

The pedigree of honey Does not concern the bee; A clover, any time, to him Is aristocracy. ---Emily Dickinson

i would disagree with you about most of europe. they are more broke than we are and are scaling back their social welfare programs. they can no longer afford them. the quality of life there is not better unless you think that having 50% of the population living off the labor of the other 50% is a good deal. we'll see. we are getting closer to that number. they do have good mass transit. since most of the countries are smaller than our average state, that's not to hard to do. it works well if you live in the city. if, like my sister, you live in the country or farm, and pay 8 dollars a gallon for fuel, it's not such a good deal.

so...what both of you are saying is that it's ok for me to work hard and be successful, then to have what i have worked for taken and given to others. the more i work, the more they will take. heck of a deal.

war: that is one thing the govt is supposed to pay for. it is also a temporary expense. social welfare programs go on forever and expand in scope and expense.

the greatest expansions in government were under Wilson, FDR, and Johnson. we got a depression from Wilson, and FDR, Johnson lowered taxes.

Quote

The tendency of individuals to look after themselves first and foremost results in an ongoing concentration of wealth.

this is a liberal lie. as individuals, americans contribute more to charities, both NGOs and church charities, than individuals in any other country. we do that because we do feel a social responsibility to those IN NEED. we choose to help those who are in trouble, or who can not care for themselves. even those who do not make a lot tend to be generous.

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Despite all your complaining about how your hard earned money is being stolen, unless I am missing something here, you are not someone who would be greatly harmed by the current proposals for higher taxes on the wealthy. Only those with taxable incomes over $250k would be affected at all. And the tax only applies to the amount over 250k. So if the tax was an additional 10% and you made $500k after deductions, your added tax would be $25k. For that extra tax, you get to live in a country with decent services, education, health care, less crime etc. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Quote

war: that is one thing the govt is supposed to pay for. it is also a temporary expense. social welfare programs go on forever and expand in scope and expense.

In case you haven't noticed, since Bush we now live in the era of perpetual war. (Just read 1984 for the context) Social welfare expenses don't expand unless the programs aren't doing their job. If the programs are half-hearted to start with, then of course they don't work. For example, public housing that stacks people like cordwood and marks them as subhuman and unemployable, sites those housing projects next to substandard schools and offers no health care... yeah, those are not going to be successful in getting people back on their feet as contributing members of society.

Your stats on who gives to charity pretty much makes my point. The poor and middle class give a much larger percentage than the wealthy. That is concentration of wealth in action.

And the claim that conservatives give more is silly. That was based on the fact that red states give a higher percentage than blue states. Well duh, there are fewer wealthy people in red states so the earlier point about the wealthy not giving sort of makes the point. And this says nothing about whether it is liberals or conservatives doing the giving. It could be that liberals in red states give more BECAUSE they see much more public need in the red states. That would be because the red states fail to offer adequate support for their own citizens.

only those over 250k. talk to me again in a few month when the tax cuts expire. tell me how i am not impacted by higher taxes on tanning, cigarettes, higher fees for passports, higher taxes for schools, etc. talk to me about the AMT. you don't think that's going to hit the middle class hard?

what do you think the debt commission is going to recommend? higher taxes. very likely a VAT tax. that's obamas way out of his promise. it is the purpose of the commission.

by next year, we will be in a depression. we are all going to pay for it.

it really does not matter how much i make. the government does not have a right to take it and give it to someone else. just because they made a law that says it's not theft, doesn't mean it's not theft.

from the first link:Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

you should reread the articles. i don't think you read very carefully.

i can tell you the difference between blue and red, and it's not about the government not doing enough for poor people. it's about individuals and their responsibility to each other and their community.

when i did Katrina, the people of NO sat on their roofs and waited for rescue. then they sat in lines and waited for handouts. the people of MS rescued themselves and then began cleaning up the mess. neighborhoods got together and cut trees, cleared roads, and took care of each other. same thing outside NO where JP lives. after Rita, the people worked together and took care of each other. a few took shelter. many took food until the power was back on. after that, they thanked us for our help and sent us on our way.

when i did the mid-west floods, which were worse than Katrina, but less reported...the people ignored our shelter and went out and sandbagged their town. they save it from flooding. after that, they got together and as communities, cleaned up the mess and helped each other. we had to go out and search for people who needed help. they accepted food and then went back to work cleaning up.

that is the difference between those who are dependent on the govt and those who are not. and...it is the reason i do what i do. i don't believe that the government should be responsible for rescuing everyone. i do believe that we have an individual responsibility to help where we can and give what we can. my ability to do this will be limited by the theft of my resources by the government.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Despite all your complaining about how your hard earned money is being stolen, unless I am missing something here, you are not someone who would be greatly harmed by the current proposals for higher taxes on the wealthy. Only those with taxable incomes over $250k would be affected at all. And the tax only applies to the amount over 250k. So if the tax was an additional 10% and you made $500k after deductions, your added tax would be $25k. For that extra tax, you get to live in a country with decent services, education, health care, less crime etc. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Sure it sounds great to you. Robbin Hood robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. The poor thought that was the greatest thing. But it was still a criminal act.

The rich are the ones that create the jobs (well a lot of them do) and they have made their money off of the great products they have produced. They are the one's that employ a lot of us. So now we take from them with some Robbin Hood Tax law and they start laying off workers and raising prices of their products.

I know if I was rich and had enough to live on the rest of my life I would probably just close up shop, fire everybody, and go on permanent vacation somewhere than worry about who will want more of my money next.

Logged

:rainbowflower: Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. :rainbowflower:

didn't robin hood rob the government/church and give (back) to the poor?

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

I applaud you for working in disaster zones. I don't doubt your observations. People who are kept in a state of dependency are, as you say, less likely to take the initiative to help themselves. That does not mean that government has no responsibility. It means that government has the responsibility to do a better job of getting those folks out of dependency. That means quality education for the next generation, health care, and real jobs so that those people respect themselves. If they aren't making it now, how is it going to be better if government walks away? They will starve, or deal drugs, or whatever shortcut is available to survive.

The links you provided have no actual data, and based on the extrapolations that are there I'm dubious. He says that people who don't think the government has no responsibility do more. That is probably right and you are an example. But most of the real liberals I know are willing to put their money on the line too. They (and I) support higher taxes on themselves, if they get real value for the money. I don't mind paying taxes for good schools, good roads, health care etc. Doesn't mean I want to go out and shovel asphalt. I'd rather be getting stung in the bee yard. :-D

i don't mind paying for schools if i am getting my moneys worth. i don't think i am, do you? old article, but i think it makes some very good points.

our public school system is failing. it costs to much. it does not turn out kids who are qualified to work and barely are they qualified to move on to higher ed. after WW2 we began to teach kids that they had to go to college to be successful. we stopped preparing kids for trades. regulations made in nearly impossible for kids to apprentice to a trade and schools didn't encourage it. now schools are either teaching to the college bound, or to the lowest common denominator. either way, a lot of kids are coming out of school with no direction and no skills.

there is no accountability in schools. thank you teachers unions. no only is a huge amount of money being spent on the education system bureaucracy, a huge amount is spent propping up ridiculous pay and benefit packages. a relatively small amount of money is spent on student....and even that could be overcome if not for unions and their protection of bad teachers and the status-quo.

the British education system has some very good ideas. kids are encouraged to pick a technical track or an academic track. they are not all forced toward university. this relieves congestion in the university system, and allows kids to train for blue collar work without feeling like they have failed society.

as for the rest of it, if states want to do all that stuff, by all means, go for it. let's not turn it over to the feds so they can manage it as well as they have SSI and Medicare.

do you know that NHS is the 3rd largest employer in the world? that's with a population of 63 or so million people. what do you think the us national health care plan will look like? don't think your taxes will go up??

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

bigbearomaha

here's an interesting idea. How about the government quit playing games and taxing incomes differently and drop all the tax shelters.

If everyone across the board paid the same percentage in taxes, that's about as 'fair' as it is ever going to get. No one paying practically nothing, no one paying more than others. no one hiding and lying how much money they have so they won't have to pay more on it.

But no. The games continue to be played by political hacks who hold obligations to political parties and not just people.

I do not think it is right at all to make someone pay more who happens to make more money than someone else. If I go bust my butt with my own business and work a second job while my wife works an extra job as well, we would make more money than folks who only work one job and we will have earned every penny of it. Someone else who doesn't or can't put that much effort in and make the same amount of money is not entitled to some of mine just because I have more.

and, I don't give money to anyone. If someone needs food, I will bring them food. If someone needs clothes, I will bring them clothes. Etc...but the decisions I make with my money are mine to make, not someone else's, especially not the governments.

If you want to give people money, feel free, make those decisions with your money. You can even ask me if I want to pitch in, I just might. But when you come tell me that I have to pitch in, even if I disagree with the cause or who is getting the benefits. I agree, it's just politically justified theft.

a flat tax would be fantastic. no exceptions regardless of source of income.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

i like the fair tax because we control what we are taxed based on consumption. the only thing is, i think you'd have to tax all consumption and not exclude some things. i'd like to see the numbers run on both. if you did a flat tax on gross earnings and eliminated exclusions, it might be easier to manage but that's not the proposal i don't think. then...you have to deal with states...

we have no sales tax. we have taxes and fees on everything else and they are constantly going up. our state health care plan to cover the uninsured (as a preview of the national plan) is a big, black, hole. in addition, they advertised to get more people on state aid so that they could get more federal dollars. no plan for what happens when those dollars run out in a few years.

not only do we need to change the way we pay taxes, but we need to get the states off the federal teat.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....